Marchand II v. Barnhill
212 A.3d 805 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporate board of directors breaches its duty of loyalty under the Caremark doctrine if it fails to make a good faith effort to implement any board-level system of monitoring and reporting for mission-critical corporate risks. Furthermore, a director's independence may be reasonably doubted when deep, longstanding personal and professional ties to a defendant executive suggest a debt of gratitude that would compromise impartial judgment.
Facts:
- Blue Bell Creameries USA, Inc., a company whose sole product is ice cream, made food safety a mission-critical operational risk.
- Between 2009 and 2014, Blue Bell management, led by CEO Paul Kruse and VP of Operations Greg Bridges, was repeatedly notified by regulators (FDA, state agencies) and internal tests of sanitation problems at its plants, including positive tests for listeria.
- During this time, the Blue Bell board had no committee overseeing food safety, nor did it have any formal process or protocol requiring management to regularly report on food safety compliance, risks, or developments.
- Minutes from board meetings during this period do not show any discussion of the recurring sanitation issues or listeria discoveries; management provided only general, positive updates on 'operations.'
- In early 2015, a listeria outbreak traced to Blue Bell's products resulted in ten reported illnesses and three deaths.
- The outbreak forced Blue Bell to recall all its products, shut down production at all plants, lay off over a third of its workforce, and face a severe liquidity crisis.
- Subsequent FDA inspections found numerous, systemic sanitation deficiencies at all three plants, many of which were similar to issues identified in prior years' regulatory inspections.
- To avoid collapse, Blue Bell was forced to accept a highly dilutive investment from a private equity firm, which significantly reduced existing stockholders' equity and control.
Procedural Posture:
- A stockholder filed a derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against executives and directors of Blue Bell Creameries USA, Inc.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to plead demand futility as required by Court of Chancery Rule 23.1.
- The Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff had failed to raise a reasonable doubt about the board's independence and had not stated a viable claim for breach of the duty of oversight under Caremark.
- The plaintiff stockholder (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court, with the corporate defendants (appellees) responding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a stockholder's derivative complaint adequately plead demand futility when it alleges (1) that a key director is not independent due to deep personal and professional ties to the defendant executive's family, and (2) that the board utterly failed to implement any board-level system to monitor the company's most critical compliance risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Strine
Yes, the complaint adequately pleads demand futility. A stockholder may proceed with a derivative suit when the pleadings establish a reasonable doubt as to the board's ability to impartially consider a demand. First, the complaint raises a reasonable doubt about director W.J. Rankin's independence from CEO Paul Kruse. Rankin's entire career was built under the mentorship of Kruse's father, and the Kruse family honored him with a major charitable campaign in his name. These facts support a pleading-stage inference of 'very warm and thick personal ties of respect, loyalty, and affection' that would compromise his ability to impartially decide whether to sue Kruse. Second, the complaint states a valid claim for a breach of the duty of loyalty under In re Caremark. The board has a duty to make a good faith effort to implement a reasonable information and reporting system for the company's central compliance risks. For a 'monoline' company like Blue Bell, food safety is 'essential and mission critical.' The complaint alleges the board had no committee, no regular reporting process, and no protocol to oversee this risk, supporting an inference of an 'utter failure' to implement any monitoring system, which constitutes bad faith.
Analysis:
This decision significantly revitalized the Caremark doctrine, making it a more viable tool for shareholders to hold directors accountable for oversight failures. It clarifies that a complete absence of board-level reporting systems concerning a company's most essential, or 'mission-critical,' risks can satisfy the high pleading standard for bad faith. The ruling serves as a strong warning to corporate boards that they must proactively establish and monitor oversight mechanisms, particularly for risks central to the company's business model, rather than passively relying on management's filtered reports. The opinion also reinforces a holistic, contextual approach to director independence, emphasizing that deep personal and professional loyalties, not just financial ties, can compromise a director's impartiality.
Unlock the full brief for Marchand II v. Barnhill